Inter-academic Aggression: The Sociobiology Debate
In evolutionary time the individual organism counts for almost nothing… Its primary function is not even to reproduce other organisms; it reproduces genes, and it serves as their temporary carrier… The chicken is only an egg’s way of making another egg. (Wilson, 1975)
You may be forgiven for balking a bit at such a grim statement. This quote comes to you courtesy of Edward O. Wilson, taken from his book Sociobiology: A New Synthesis. Don’t feel bad tho, your hostile reaction would be nothing new for this provocative evolutionary biologist. Sociobiology invigorated a generation of biologists by summarizing several decades’ worth of concepts and methods and applying them to the age-old problem of altruism (and other social behaviors), which had confounded Darwin himself. It also infuriated a generation of left-leaning scientists, social and otherwise, because it was perceived as an unwelcome intrusion of biological reductionism and determinism into the study of humanity. So, what’s the juicy story behind all this animosity? This post will shed some light on the main ideas, players and consequences of the sociobiology debate, and the lessons that scientists who study an interdisciplinary field can draw from the conflict.
The field of sociobiology took off quite quickly in America. Wilson, working at Harvard, published his book in 1975. Richard Dawkins followed up with The Selfish Gene in 1976. That same year, major universities opened sociobiology classes to eager-beaver students. This “new synthesis” was the next step in evolutionary biology, a field which was until then recycling ideas popularized by ethology and hadn’t made any major moves since the mid 1960s. Suddenly, wide-ranging experimental and theoretical work from animal demography, population genetics, communication, grouping behavior and more were unified in an attempt to explain the biological basis of social behavior.
Possibly the most radical aspect of sociobiology was its promotion of the “gene’s eye view” perspective, which minimized the role of the individual to a simple vehicle for gene flow across time. The idea stemmed from George C. William’s dissatisfaction with group selection explanations of social behavior, since cheaters could easily take advantage of an altruistic group and prevent the very possibility of selection at any generic group level. Instead of focusing on individual organisms, he shifted the focus to their genes and argued that a gene was selected on one criterion only: “its average effectiveness in producing individuals able to maximize the gene’s representation in future generations” (Williams, 1966).
The concept of kin selection, as devised by Bill Hamilton in 1964, supported the gene’s eye view and gave an alternative to weak group selection arguments. Hamilton solved the mystery of the extreme devotion of eusocial insects (ants, bees, wasps) to their hive. He pointed out that the relatedness of two individuals affected their willingness to behave altruistically towards each other, which can be summed up by Hamilton’s Rule: Cost < Relatedness * Benefit. The British biostatistician J.B.S. Haldane had formulated it another way a decade earlier when he joked, “I would lay down my life for two brothers [R=0.5] or eight cousins [R=0.125].” Insects dedicated themselves to their sisters and queen because of their unusually high relatedness quotient [R=0.75], which itself is a result of their unique haplodiploidy sexual reproduction.
Sociobiologists used mathematical models — most prominently the application of game theory to behavioral choices — to explore and support their arguments. Dawkins used game theory to derive the existence of evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS). This is when a behavior, or ratio of behaviors, fixates across an entire population. He famously applied it to male and female mating behavior, where males chose between faithful and philanderer strategies, and women chose between coy and fast strategies. After applying arbitrary outcome values [NB: btw this is always the fucking problem when using game theory to predict anything without a price and one of the biggest reasons I hated having to apply it when I studied IR], he reached a mixed ESS where males were slightly more likely to be promiscuous than females overall, but the most common outcome was faithful male and coy female.
Blah blah ok so you see they did good things. On to the drama!
Everything was all peachy until Wilson applied his big, long analysis to the humble Homo sapiens sapiens. Up until then, human behavior had been considered the domain of anthropologists, and happily so by their reckoning. The previous application of (fundamentally misrepresented tyvm) biology to humanity had resulted in eugenics laws and the suffering of millions. From the social scientist’s viewpoint, human behavior is a product of culture and its historical processes, with genetic influence relegated to the passenger’s seat, just coming along for a really fun ride with its dad, culture. Well, Wilson made the unfortunate decision to explicitly invoke genes to explain social phenomena, including religion, gender roles, sexuality, and warfare. Here are a few examples of what pissed so many people off, taken from his infamous final chapter of Sociobiology:
A gene-centric explanation of warfare and genocide:
If any social predatory mammal attains a certain level of intelligence… one band would have the capacity to consciously ponder the significance of adjacent social groups and to deal with them in an intelligent, organized fashion. A band might then dispose of a neighboring band, appropriate its territory, and increase its own genetic representation in the metapopulation, retaining the tribal memory of this successful episode, repeating it.
An evolutionary explanation of homosexuality:
The homosexual members of primitive societies may have functioned as helpers… Genes favoring homosexuality could then be sustained at a high equilibrium level by kin selection alone.
The adaptive behavior of class relegation:
!Kung men, no less than men in advanced industrial societies, generally establish themselves by their mid-thirties or else accept a lesser status for life. There are some who never try to make it, live in run-down huts, and show little pride in themselves or their work (Pfeiffer, 1969). The ability to slip into such roles, shaping one’s personality to t, may itself be adaptive.
Honestly, while reading through his book to find these examples, I found that Wilson often hedges his statements and emphasizes that human behavior is modified by culture to an extreme extent unseen in other species. It should be noted that Dawkins also cautions about applying his previously mentioned ESS conclusions to human behavior. However, taken out of context, these statements are insensitive at best, and are open to easy misinterpretation and exploitation.
Wilson’s speculations led to the emergence of an opposition, exemplified by an organization of academics at Harvard who called themselves The Sociobiology Study Group. Two prominent evolutionary biologists, Steven Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin (whose office was directly below Wilson’s) headed this group, and they published an open letter accusing Wilson of perpetuating race and gender inequalities. The gist of their critique is summarized by the following quote:
…we suspect that human biological universals are to be discovered more in the generalities of eating, excreting and sleeping than in such specific and highly variable habits as warfare, sexual exploitation of women and the use of money as a medium of exchange. (Allen et al., 1975)
Wilson took no heed of their attack and went on to publish Pulitzer prize winning On Human Nature in 1978. In it, Wilson actually acknowledged that the human mind was shaped by both culture and genetics, perhaps a conciliatory effort to defuse the debate. Demonstrators responded by storming an American Association for the Advancement of Science conference and helpfully pouring a pitcher of ice-cold water over Wilson’s head, while shouting “Wilson, you’re all wet!” Haha, totally roasted.
Wilson finally conceded to his critics by publishing (alongside theoretical physicist Charles Lumsden) Genes, Mind and Culture in 1979, which accepted the role culture and social transmission played in shaping human phenotype. Unfortunately, this was too little too late to save sociobiology’s reputation. It didn’t help that the text was filled with extensive math (hiss!) and was too opaque to be popularly appreciated (Laland & Brown, 2011).
Ok, I’ve basically reached the end of today’s patience writing about this, but basically we can see that despite being universally reviled in social science circles, sociobiology made massive contributions in the understanding of evolution. However, Wilson should have just read the relevant anthropological literature before jumping into the deep end of the pool. In short, if you study something that’s interdisciplinary, make sure you study what’s already been written on the topic (even if you don’t like or even care about it) before publishing a book.
I think it’s worth considering the position that all phenotypes are ultimately derived from genotype, including the phenotype of extreme plasticity that characterizes humans. Our genotype can still demarcates the boundary conditions for any epigenetic factor, including the influence of culture. But, this is something for another post.
- Laland, K. N., & Brown, G. R. (2011). Sense and nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour. Oxford University Press.
- Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: the abridged version. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
- Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton University Press.
